Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
475
48 S.Ct. 160
72 L.Ed. 381
China (22 Stat. 826, 827), provides for the admission of Chinese subjects
'proceeding to the United States as * * * merchants.' Section 15 of the
Exclusion Act, as amended (8 USCA 273), makes the act applicable 'to all
subjects of China and Chinese, whether subjects of China or any other foreign
power.' Section 6 as amended (the relevant portions are in the margin1 ) requires
'every Chinese person, other than a laborer, who may be entitled by said treaty
or this act' to admission, to 'obtain the permission of and be identified as so
entitled by the Chinese government, or of such other foreign government of
which at the time such Chinese person shall be a subject.' The sole question
presented is whether the word 'subject' as used in section 6 is to be taken as
including only those persons who by birth or naturalization owe permanent
allegiance to the government issuing the certificate, or as embracing also those
who, being domiciled within the territorial limits of that government, owe it for
that reason obedience and temporary allegiance.
The word may be used in either sense. See The Pizarro, 2 Wheat. 227, 245, 4 L.
Ed. 226; Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147, 154, 21 L. E. 426. If the
narrower meaning be the appropriate one, the respondents were 'subjects' of the
Chinese government, and it alone could issue certificates entitling them to
admission. The government of French Indo-China could issue such certificates
only to persons of the Chinese race who owed it permanent allegiance.
The Circuit Court of Appeals thought that, since the statute was in execution of
a treaty with China, which related only to the immigration of Chinese nationals,
the provisions in section 6 for the certification of identity could have no
application to persons of Chinese race who were nationals of other
governments, and so concluded that certificates were required of governments
other than China only in the case of Chinese nationals resident under those
governments.
But in this view it is overlooked that the amended Exclusion Act is broader
than the treaty. Before the amendment the federal courts had not agreed
whether persons of Chinese race who were nationals of countries other than
China were affected by the statute. United States v. Douglas (C. C.) 17 F. 634;
In re Ah Lung (C. C.) 18 F. 28. Section 15 of the amended act made all its
provisions applicable 'to all subjects of China and Chinese, whether subjects of
China or any other foreign power.' The avowed purpose of the amendment was
to alter the act as interpreted in United States v. Douglas, supra, where it had
been held to have no application to Chinese subjects of Great Britain. Report of
Committee on Foreign Affairs, 48th Cong. 1st. Sess. H. Rep. 614, p. 2.2 The
purpose, therefore, of the insertion in section 6 of the phrase 'of such other
foreign government of which at the time such Chinese person shall be a subject'
Something may be said in support of the view that the more usual and, perhaps,
more accurate use of the word 'subject' is that contended for by the government.
Const. U. S. art. 3, 2; Hammerstein v. Lyne (D. C.) 200 F. 165; Dicey,
Conflict of Laws (2d Ed.) 164. It is so used in our immigration and
naturalization laws. Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 20, 39 Stat. 874, 890 (8
USCA 156); Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 4, 34 Stat. 596 (Comp. St.
4352). It may be said, also, that the importance of administrative convenience
and certainty in a statute of this character suggests that the word was used as
indicating citizenship by birth or naturalization, a status more easily ascertained
than that of domicile or residence. But these considerations need not detain us
in view of the history of the legislation, to which we have already referred, and
of the long and consistent practical construction of the act.
limitation in 1904 and was not renewed. While it was in force Chinese
nationals, resident abroad, could be admitted to the United States on
presentation of a certificate either of the Chinese government, as authorized by
section 6, or of the government of their residence, as permitted by the treaty.8
During the life of the treaty the amended Exclusion Act, continued in force for
10 years from May 5, 1892, by the act of that date (chapter 60, 1, 27 Stat. 25
(Comp. St. 4315)), would have expired. But by the Act of April 29, 1902, c.
641, 1, 32 Stat. 176, 'all laws now in force * * * regulating the coming of
Chinese persons, * * * into the United States, * * * are hereby, re-enacted,
extended, and continued so far as the same are not inconsistent with treaty
obligations, until otherwise provided by law.' By this statute the certificate
provisions of section 6 of the amended Exclusion Act were continued
indefinitely and, on the expiration in 1904 of the treaty of 1894, became the
only law on that subject. The reenactment of section 6 unchanged, and subject
only to the provisions of a treaty now expired, must be accepted as a legislative
approval of the practical construction the section had received. Compare
National Lead Co v. United States, 252 U. S. 140, 40 S. Ct. 237, 64 L. Ed. 496.
10
11
Reversed.
'Sec. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of the provisions of this act,
every Chinese person, other than a laborer, who may be entitled by said treaty
or this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to
the United States, shall obtain the permission of and be identified as so entitled
by the Chinese government, or of such other foreign government of which at
the time such Chinese person shall be a subject. * * *'
The very fact that the amended act went beyond the scope of the treaty and
affected Chinese nationals of powers other than China was one source of the
objections of the committee minority. 'It is perhaps worthy of notice that this
section not only attempts to make more stringent restrictive regulations against
Chinese laborers, subjects of China, with whom we have some show of right,
under a treaty, to make them, and against the Chinese subjects of other nations,
with whom we have no such treaty stipulations, but that its other provisions
unquestionably exceed the scope of the treaty with China.' Report of Committee
on Foreign Affairs, Views of the Minority, 48th Cong. 1st Sess. H. Rep. 614, p.
5.
The President thus stated the effect of section 6: it 'provides in terms for the
issuance of certificates in two cases only: (a) Chinese subjects departing from a
port of China; and (b) Chinese persons (i. e., of the Chinese race) who may at
the time be subjects of some foreign government other than China, and who
may depart for the United States from the ports of such other foreign
government. * * *
'It is sufficient that I should call the earnest attention of Congress to the
circumstance that the statute makes no provision whatever for the somewhat
numerous class of Chinese persons who, retaining their Chinese subjection in
some countries other than China, desire to come from such countries to the
United States.'
The recognized that the amended statute went beyond the scope of the treaty by
saying: 'A statute is certainly most unusual which, purporting to execute the
Mr. Tsui to Mr. Wharton, June 2, 1891, Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 457; Mr.
Yang Yu to Mr. Gresham, October 10, 1893, Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 260.
Mr. Wharton to Mr. Tsui, June 17, 1891, Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 459; 20
Op. Atty. Gen. 693.
The Attorney General at one time thought that the treaty provided an exclusive
method of certification for Chinese nationals resident outside of China. 21 Op.
Atty. Gen. 347; 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 201. But see Mr. Wu to Mr. Hay, November
7, 1898, Foreign Relations, 1899, pp. 190, 191.